Novelists and Terrorists

In my early reading of Mao II, I was intrigued to see Delillo make the connection between terrorists and novelists. It’s obviously a bold (intentionally so) statement to make, but I think the authors point of both the terrorist and novelist being voices in the formation of culture carries some truth.

In Delillo’s own words, “There’s a curious knot that binds novelists and terrorists.” (41)

Continuing on in the passage, Delillo makes the point that in the West, writers who once had profound influence on the consciousness of their readers, are now becoming revered symbols and nothing more. He seeks to make the point that rampant and amorphic violence seem to do more these days in shaping human thought and understanding.

“News of disaster is the only narrative people need. The darker the news, the grander the narrative.” (42)

As Delillo continues his point, he seems to suggest its not just violence itself, but news of violence which is increasingly hijacking the minds of individuals “addicted” to violence in news.

This sparked a tangent of thought within me, centered on the question, “Is it better to be well-read, or well-informed?”

I gravitated toward this line of questioning I think because I am a journalism enthusiast, with a certain level of appreciation for newswriting nonfiction writing forms. Part of the reason I  am interested in working in the journalism field is because the work of journalists, the words they write, are perhaps more instantly useful or effective to a large group of people.

I think it goes without saying that it pays to be “in the know” on at least certain news items. In certain cases, being informed of news topics can save your life and your livelihood.

Still, the work of journalists is influence in the short-term. They can tell you where and when the bad guy got caught, which highway route to take home from work and might help you decide which stock options you want to hold onto.

The work of a novelist or, affectionately, a writer, is of long term influence. “Classic” novelists have an eternal quality about them. They trigger discourse on topics to be debated for centuries, perhaps forever. This realization brought my attention back to the Foucault reading about certain authors being “founders of discursivity.”

Delillo’s lamentation in this passage seems to be that readers are being near-sighted with the kind of writing they are taking in. They seem to care less about the long-term formation of their consciousness and instead are neglecting it for the arguably more accessible, short-term influence of news and disaster. An interesting thought.

For and Delillo and presumably, the rest of us, the trick would be strike a balance in our lives of an equal intake of short-term and long-term thought building.